The Horse I Rode In On Rides Back Out

I happened to be flipping through some old e-mails from The National Catholic Register when I ran across your article, “God Bless you and the horse you rode in on,” As usual, your ability to look beyond the top layer of things produced an outstanding account of how the subject of masked hatred can be demonstrated, rationalized, excused and then just simply explained.

I take from your description that there are at least two possibilities for why people vent anger and hatred, then follow it up by a “may God bless you.” The first is hypocrisy. They want to hate you – and they do – but at the same time, they want to appear to be “honorably motivated,” thus the strained reference to divinity. The second possibility takes the form of temperance. These people also actually hate you, and in their passion attack you, but immediately after, recognize a conflict between their passion and their ideals, taking the edge off the former by an expression of the latter. The second state would seem far better than the first.

Extrapolating from your insights, may I suggest a behavior that reverses the order of hate delivery. Some haters first patronize their target with elaborate praise - then with great craft, subtly insert a knife between the third and fourth ribs. The hate displayed here exceeds that of the two you describe above, in that it is evidently premeditated and designed to destroy. No extenuating circumstance softens this version of hate, the hater himself appearing reasonable while the hated is unmistakably painted as suspect – worthy of the hate directed at him.

I’m fairly sure there are a slew of other hatred scenarios that might be pursued. Perhaps you might develop a few more to stimulate reader introspection? We would certainly stand to benefit.

Certainly we know from revelation and from common experience that in addition to the phenomenon of genuine interior struggle against sin, there is also the phenomenon of those who struggle to conceal their sin so as to indulge it. Jesus speaks of the Pharisees who rejected him, not as weak men nobly striving to discover and express the better angels of their natures, but as "whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Matthew 23:27-28). And indeed that is typically the first assumption we make when we encounter seriously hypocritical behavior from a pious person.

(And by the way, I would use "pious" to denote not merely religious piety, but a wide range of behavior by which people live out their conception of what a "good" or "decent" person does. So one can be a "pious" supporter of recycling, or public radio, or volunteering at the homeless shelter or whatever other way somebody might live out what their culture tells them is a "moral' life. And, even on those terms, "pious" people can be hypocrites and violate their own personal codes. So the civic minded volunteer at the voting booth might secretly destroy ballots, or the library supporter might filch books, or the one who preaches environmentalism might drive a gas guzzler.)

So sure, there are people whose words and deeds contradict each other, not because they are decent people locked in combat with their disordered appetites, weakened will, and darkened intellect, but because, as you note, they are are malicious people covering their malice with a veneer of seeming virtue. So we see people all through the gospel asking Jesus questions, not out of an honest interest in the truth, but in order to catch him in his words and find some way to condemn him.

Sometimes, that can be pretty easy to discern. So when somebody flatters you a couple of times before sticking in the shiv (as in your example) sure, common sense says not to go all pollyanna and pretend they mean well. But at the same time, part of the reason I wrote the column is that this easy inference can sometimes be wrong and we can misread people's intentions. And the problem can be that there is simply no way to know if the person we are dealing with is a malicious person covering his malice with a veneer of virtue or a virtuous person struggling with concupiscence like St. Paul:

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. (Romans 7:15-19)

All this lies in the realm of prudential judgment, of course. You have to make the judgment call as to whether you are talking to a struggling friend or a duplicitous enemy. The gospel, of course, gives us the counsel of charity in all cases, including with enemies. But it also calls us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. With the weak, we are called to gentleness. With the sinner we are called to admonish and rebuke. And with the impenitent we are called to forgive and to not cast our pearls before swine.

Comments

@Mark Shea
I would appreciate scripture/catechism references to support your comments: “With the sinner we are called to admonish and rebuke. And with the impenitent we are called to forgive and to not cast our pearls before swine.”

Some sinners are fools who hate those who admonish them. Some sinners will become wiser and love you for correcting them. (Proverbs 9::8; 23:9; 26:4) Learning the difference between sinners who are fools and those who grow more wise takes experience.

The fool would be impenitent. How do we demonstrate that we forgive one who continues to sin? Would that be found in Luke 6:27-49?

Sometimes we sinners are so intent on taking the speck out of another’s eye that we fail to see the log in our own. (Mt.7:1-5) Then, we wonder why that person with the speck fails to heed our rebuke. Mt. 7:6 is the source of the “not to throw pearls pearls before swine”. Would “dogs” and “swine” here refer to sinners who are fools and hate the one who corrects them?

I have spent many years trying to understand the issues you raise in this article. I am still struggling. Dealing with just 2 sinners trying to get along is hard, but it gets more difficult with additional sinners being part of the mix.

I am motivated to keep trying since Jesus says that the way I treat others is the way I am treating Him. Matthew 25:45 Shalom!

Posted by Dustin on Friday, Aug 30, 2013 10:41 AM (EDT):

Oh, yes… I recognize well the pattern the reader, quoted by Mr. Shea, describes. I have been the object of such behavior myself here on this very website a number of times now. Oh, and it’s certainly not that I’m some angel myself. It just shows that going to Church, having the right ideas, and saying the right things does not one a true Christian make. There can be a little unintended elitism on a website like this which is oriented to the “right sort” of person, that is, the “orthodox” follower of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t think anyone appears impressive in the light of the eternal.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Aug 29, 2013 3:51 AM (EDT):

Greg:

You are obviously a good egg. Thanks for being one of the good guys!

Posted by Greg on Thursday, Aug 29, 2013 1:39 AM (EDT):

@ Mark Shea

Mark, I recognise you get all kinds in your combox, as well as in the blogoshpere, and that you therefore encounter people who are fittingly described by your characterizations, and I don’t know if you would include me among those you so characterise. I’d like to add to your list, though, from personal experience. It has happened on a few occasions that I have commented on blogs. Some of those comments fit one or other of your descriptions. Withal, I reject the characterization as hater outright. I often close my comment with the sincere desire that God bless you, just I sincerely call attention to a cautionary perspective. It might happen that I have a question related to the material which is left open by the blog, in which case I hope for clarification. It might also happen that I recognise a weakness in an otherwise valuable blog, in which case I hope to forestall in you and/or your readers unnecessary complications in thought, speech or life arising from an oversight or omission. Such is the case with this comment.

God bless you,
Greg

Posted by charles harmett on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 9:23 PM (EDT):

to Theodore and Saundra
Excellent posts. A good summary of the catholic faith in a few sentences.

Posted by Saundra Lee on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 9:03 PM (EDT):

As our Lord said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” We are called to preach the Gospel by the lives we live. We are called to be mirrors reflecting our Lord. As St. Francis said, “Always preach the Gospel. Use words if necessary.

Posted by JessieM. on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 8:38 PM (EDT):

@Mark Shea, Yes, that makes sense.

Posted by Theodore M. Seeber on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 5:41 PM (EDT):

What excommunication for those who defy Church teaching would do, would be to clarify what it means to be Catholic for everybody else.

Posted by mso on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 4:46 PM (EDT):

How hard it must be to be a Bishop! With everybody telling you what to do, especially the Evil One (trying to strike the shepherd in order for the sheep to scatter), how can a Bishop discern what is “best” in these difficult cases? I thank God that I do not have the weight of so many souls as my responsibility!

Excommunication isn’t what it once was - not in the public’s eye. And likely not in Pelosi/Biden/Sebelius’s eyes, either. Back in the day of Catholic-dominated countries, excommunication was a very effective intervention-type action used to admonish an unrepentant sinner and bring him/her to repentance. IOWs: it was effective.

Today, especially in the U.S., excommunication doesn’t have that kind of clout. I’m not saying that it should not be used!! I’m just not sure that it would “work”. And, if over-used, it would lose what little punch it might still have.

“Pick your battles” is excellent advice. May the day come when a popular Bishop will see a Catholic politician/celebrity who is in exactly the right position to actually wake up at such a public rebuke - that his/her soul might be saved and he/she then speaks out about the pain of excommunication and the healing of repentance. Imagine that day! Pray for it! And realize that we’d undermine such a day ever dawning if our Bishops went around excommunicating everyone who deserved it.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri, pray for our Bishops!!!
Mother Mary, intercede for them!
St. Michael, defend them!
May all Saints and Martyrs and Holy Angels join us in fervent prayer for our Bishops, that they shepherd their flocks under the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Posted by Rich in MN on Tuesday, Aug 27, 2013 9:16 AM (EDT):

Andy and Charles, thank you both for your feedback. I know that we are all sinners so we all drill holes in the hull of the Barque of Peter all the while the bishops are trying to steer Her. I continue to pray daily for our Church and Her shepherds.

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 9:52 PM (EDT):

to Andy
Read up a bit on church history especially the last 50 years or so.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 9:19 PM (EDT):

Charles, I think the Church is now just you and me. And I’m not so sure about you.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 9:17 PM (EDT):

To Rich: I wonder the same things too. Three thoughts: (1) I trust the Bishops judgments in these matters. I think they’re prayerful and wise (at least collectively) and want to follow the Spirit’s guidance. (2) Excommunication is a big deal, and isn’t meant to be a weapon to silence those with whom we disagree. In my excommunications’ fantasies, it’s the people I don’t like who are walking the plank. How convenient that those I dislike are also heretics… (3) Stick to our knitting, meaning, I don’t think it really helps us to try to gauge the spiritual temperature of others.

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 9:10 PM (EDT):

to Andy
Judas betrayed Jesus. Peter denied him thrice. The other apostles ran away. Thomas disbelieved the resurrection. And all of this took place in the very beginning of the catholic church. Believe me I wish that things were different. To sum it up, the teachings of the church are correct but it is the teachers who sometimes mess up. Peace,brother.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 8:58 PM (EDT):

Oh, let’s see: (1) “There are rumors that our current pope is a freemason.” Do you think it’s okay to say junk like that? (2) “Pope Paul 6 actually publicly denied being a homosexual while pope so one can only imagine the rumors in those days.” This must mean Paul 6 was a homosexual, of course. (3) There were rumors that Pope John 23 was not legitimately elected.” What’s that even mean? (4) “And so on.”
Like I said: check under your bed for the boogey man.

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 8:56 PM (EDT):

to Andy
Please be specific.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 8:51 PM (EDT):

Charles Harnett: Are you nuts? Check under your bed, btw. I think the boogey man is there…there he is….I see him…right there…

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 8:43 PM (EDT):

to Rich
EXCELLENT post. If the church hierarchy is populated by freemasons and practicing homosexuals then logic would dictate that these people would want to “keep things quiet” in order to not disturb the status quo. They do not want the pandoras box of excommunication opened. There are rumors that our current pope is a freemason. Again rumor is only rumor not proven fact. Pope Paul 6 actually publicly denied being a homosexual while pope so one can only imagine the rumors in those days. There were rumors that Pope John 23 was not legitimately elected. And so on. The bishops in this country are afraid of someone or something, that is for sure.

Posted by Rich in MN on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 7:06 PM (EDT):

Okay, I’ve got a dumb question for my fellow comboxians. First, before blinding y’all with my naivete, let me first say that I’m sure bishops have a really, really, really hard job. And I know that my knowledge of situations is like seeing an iceberg through the fog: 90% is beneath the surface and completely invisible to me, and the other 10% is significantly obscured. So I am asking my question with my head bowed. (You’ll have to take my word for that.)
Are there any facts, theories, hypotheses, or even wild guesses as to why bishops do not address more publicly and more directly the problem of Catholics who publicly oppose Church teaching? I’m not asking Cardinal Dolan to ridicule Gov Cuomo on CNN or something like that. Maybe just something general like: “God has commanded me to speak the truth not only about the Good and the True, but also about those things that are intrinsically evil such as abortion and gay ‘marriage.’ These are direct attacks on human life and on the very cornerstone, the load-bearing wall of civilization, the family. Those people who promote these evils foster deception and tragedy in our world and risk a terrible outcome in the next. I’m just sayin’.”

Any THoughts, THeories, or hypoTHeses???

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 2:25 PM (EDT):

to silverlady
Actually i would not trust them but i was making a point. the point being that the church refuses to excommunicate these people. perhaps i should have put quotation marks around preach the gospel as we all know that they would give up their faith before accepting any real verifiable type of penance.

Posted by silverlady on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 11:00 AM (EDT):

Charles, You would trust them to preach the gospel? I would send them to a remote monastery todo penance.

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 9:04 AM (EDT):

The leadership of the LCWR is/are impenitent. Excommunicate them or give them a true penance. Send them individually to some remote outpost to preach the gospel.

Posted by charles harmett on Monday, Aug 26, 2013 8:55 AM (EDT):

A great article. The last paragraph is a great road map as to how to deal with people.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.